ArticleGastrointestinal endoscopy2022
External validation of a model determining risk of neoplastic progression of Barrett's esophagus in a cohort of U.S. veterans.
Article in Gastrointestinal endoscopy, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- A Practical Guide to Incorporating Novel Barrett's Screening/Surveillance Tools into Clinical Practice.Current gastroenterology reports · 2026Review
- Liquid Biopsy and Nonendoscopic Biomarkers for Precision Early Detection of Esophageal Cancer: Evidence, Risk Stratification and Translational Challenges.Journal of Cancer · 2026Review
- Categorizing Risks within Barrett's Esophagus To Guide Surveillance and Interception; Suggesting a New Framework.Cancer prevention research (Philadelphia, Pa.) · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND
aimsRisk of esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC) in those with Barrett's esophagus (BE) is 11-fold greater than the general population. It remains unclear which BE patients are at highest risk of progression to EAC. We aimed to validate a predictive model risk-stratifying BE patients.
methodsWe conducted a retrospective cohort study at the Houston Veteran Affairs Medical Center of consecutive patients with a new diagnosis of BE from November 1990 to January 2019. Study follow-up was through February 2020. Patients were excluded if they had no follow-up EGD with esophageal biopsy sampling after the initial BE-diagnosing EGD or evidence of high-grade dysplasia (HGD) or EAC on initial EGD. We performed an external validation study of a risk model containing sex, smoking, BE length, and low-grade dysplasia (LGD) status and assessed discriminatory ability using the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC).
resultsAmong 608 BE patients, 24 progressed to HGD/EAC. The points-based model discriminated well with an AUROC of .72 (95% confidence interval [CI], .63-.82). When categorized into low-, intermediate-, and high-risk groups according to published cutoffs, the AUROC was poor at .57. Restructured into low-risk versus high-risk groups, the AUROC was .72 (95% CI, .64-.80). Excluding baseline LGD did not reduce discriminatory ability (AUROC, .73; 95% CI, .64-.82).
conclusionsThis external validation provides further evidence that the model including sex, LGD status, smoking status, and BE length may help to risk stratify BE patients. A simplified version excluding LGD status and/or reducing the number of risk groups has increased utility in clinical practice without loss of discriminatory ability.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.